advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
M.MURALI MOHAN. ADVOCATE.
- APEX COURT CASE LAW
- A.P. HIGH COURT LATEST CASE LAW
- INDIA COURTS CASE LAWS
- LEGAL REMEDIES FOR WOMEN
- MMMLAWREPORT
- MY DIARIES ON LAW
- MY WORLD AND MY COLLECTIONS
LAW FOR ALLhttp://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/
ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATEhttp://articlesofanadvocate.blogspot.com/
DISCLAIMER
All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision. Hereby excludes any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular purpose of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial tools contained within the Site. Will not be liable for any damages(including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the Site, or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any such contents. , Makes no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive properties.
ADVOCATEMMMOHAN
Sir, I shall be thankful to you how to obtained latest BALANCE SHEET OF THE ADVOCATE WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA FOR THE F.Y.2010-2011 THANKS. KISHORCHANDRA BHATT
Posted by kishorchandra | October 15, 2011, 4:07 PMSir, I SHALL
BE THANKFUL TO IF YOU WOUL LET ME KNOW THE COMPLET EXPLANATION REGA RULE 40, CHAPTER||,PART VI OF THE RULES (2)AMENDMENT IN C.R.P.C 41(1) THIS ALREADY HAS BEEN PASSED BY L.S & R.S IN AUGUST 2010
Posted by kishorchandra | October 15, 2011, 4:26 PMBy this amendment, the police officer is directed to furnish reasons for effecting arrest or for not effecting arrest.
Before effecting arrest, the police officer must satisfy first that there exist two conditions. One is – he must believe that the accused has committed cognizable offence punishable within 7 years with fine or without fine. The second condition is that there are [1]. Chances of committing any further offences, [2].chances of interfering with investigation, [3].chances of tampering evidence, [4].chances of threatening the witnesses, [5]. Chances of escape with out attending when his presence is required.
Other wise, the police officer release him without arresting during the course of investigation.
For both actions – for making arrest / for not making arrest, the police officer must record the reasons in writing in the case dairy.
When the offence is punishable more than 7 years, the police officer has no option, except to arrest the accused.
in non-cognizable offences, the police officer has no right to arrest the accused without warrant or with out the permission of Hon’ble court.
When the police officer decided not to arrest the accused, then he has to issue a notice under this section requiring the accused to present when never asked before him or at any place for inquiry and he can demand for his co-operation. If the accused not co-operated with the prosecution in all aspects, by recording reasons, the police officer can arrest the accused.
To say in a tale manner, if a police officer saw a person who committed an offence punishable within 7 years with fine or without fine like injuring other person, matrimonial offences etc.,, the police officer even though has got power to arrest the accused if the police officer believes that the accused is a respectable person even though involved in the crime, and believes that he co-operate with the police without escaping, without tampering evidence, without threatening witnesses etc. , even though the police officer has got power to arrest the accused without warrant, he can suspend the arrest and issue a notice to appear before him while conducting investigation.
But the offence is more than 7 years punishment, the police officer has no option except arrest the accused.
Posted by advocatemmmohan | November 19, 2011, 8:06 AMI truly appreciate your piece of work, Great post.
Posted by Wrocław | March 17, 2012, 6:25 AMBrief case history
On 21st July 2002 One Rajesh Kumar and Jasbir Singh compliant to police and on the basis of the complaint police regd the case u/s 406,420,467 & 468 read with 34-B IPC against 9 accused and later on 25/7/2002 police received one more similar compliant from Bhagt Singh and Jaidev against the same 9 accused. The allegations are that all the 9 accused cheated 7 lac from each and detain there passport and other documents and police attached the second compliant dated 25/7/2002 with earlier complaint dt 21/7/2002.
3 accused arrested, 4 get anticipatory bail and 2 declared PO and out of four who get anticipatory bail police discharge 3 ladies accused.
Now in the month of March 2003 police submit his closer report u/s 173 crpc only on the basis of the first complaint dated 21/7/2002 and even not mentioned anything about second complaint and no compliant is regd under complaint dt 25/7/2002.
Now the Judicial Magistrate frames the charge against the accused u/s 406, 420,468 read with 120-B IPC only on the basis of the first complaint. That you all have done crime in MARCH 2001, 10-6-2001 & 11-7-2001. Judicial Magistrate when framed the charge he had nothing mentioned about second complaint.
Now Evidence start.
All the private witness of complaint dated 21/7/2002 hostile and one compliant of complaint dated 25/7/2002 also hostile. In the nut shell all complaint hostile except one. That complaint appers in witness box and stated that he talked with all the accused in 2002 and also move application u/s 319 crpc against 3 ladies accused discharge by police and court summoned all the three ladies. Out of 3 ladies 2 ladies apply for revision in session court and session court accepted the revision of 2 ladies. The court summoned 3rd ladies as additional accused and PW again started.
Now once again compliant of first complaint dt 21/7/2002 are hostile and one compliant from second compliant also hostile. Now only one compliant appeared in witness box also stated that he talked to all the person in 2002 and also given his documents and payment of Rs. 7 lac to all the accused and after defence start cross examination and in his cross examination the following fact
“Defence asked the PW regarding his passport that you have given to passport and BA 3rd year certificate to one accused on 3/6/2001 as mentioned in complaint. Ans YES .Defence council show one documents to PW to identify his signature and he identify his signature on passport lost report DDR No 54 dated 9/7/2002 that his passport lost on 27/6/2002 and that DDR EX DJ in the record and after Defence also show him one copy of affidavit that you have given this affidavit to Regional Passport office on 20-9-2002 for re issue of passport as old one lost on 27/6/2002 and that document also EX DK in the record. Again defence show his BA3rd year certificates that certificate you have given on 3/6/2001 to one accused and defence show him date of issue of this certificate by University and that was 15/4/2002. It means that certificate not was in existence on 3-6-2001 to 15-4-2002. Defence also ask the PW to where is your passport, certificate and receipt of Rs. 7 lac was in question and he stated that my father had placed somewhere which I don’t know and my father was expired now.
After the PW court start 313 crpc and after the accused statement case lying on argument.
After hearing the argument court acquitted all the accused expect one and held guilty and sentence for 2 and ½ year with 5000/- fine.
Now my question
1. Compliant of first complaint hostile the what is the status of first compliant
2. What is the status of second compliant which was attached with earlier one and police had not submit his closer report on second complaint and not even regd the case
3. All the crime happen in second complaint in NOV 2000, 3-6-2001 and 14-7-2001 and which was not mentioned in charge frame by Judicial Magistrate.
4. More over PW statement that he talked in 2002 and entire story in compliant are 2001 and even PW accepted in court that he had lost his passport.
5. In the judgment judicial magistrate connected his complaint and 161crpc statement and chief of his statement and even not mentioned anything about the defence EX.
Posted by Dinesh | March 23, 2012, 6:53 PMRespected sir,
as far as my knowledge concern
1.your first complaint was reg. as F.I.R. if complainant turned hostile , the status does not change only the result of the case.
2.on the second complaint another case can be registered if it was not a continue offence or arose in the same cause of action, in other cases it can be considered as a peace of evidence and part and parcel of the first one.
in the later case no separate charge sheet can be filed.
3. charges are used to be framed basing on the charge sheet filed by the police.any defect in charge can be rectified during the course.
4. the evidence is contradictory evidence holds no good value in the eye of law.
5.if you are not accepted the judgement of the magistrate , you can file appeal with out passing any adverse comments on the officer.
with regards
advocatemmmohan
Posted by advocatemmmohan | March 23, 2012, 8:34 PMThank you very much for your reply and i am sending you again corrected all version:
Brief case history
On 21st July 2002 One Rajesh Kumar and Jasbir Singh made complaint to police and on the basis there of police regd this case u/s 406,420,467,468, 34 IPC against 9 accused and thereafter on 25/7/2002 police received another similar complaint of Bhagat Singh and Jaidev against the same 9 accused which was attached with complaint dated 21/7/2002. The allegations are that all the 9 accused cheated the complainants and received Rs.7 lac from each of the complainants for sending them abroad.
3 accused were arrested, 4 accused got anticipatory bail whereas 2 accused were declared PO and out of four who got anticipatory bail police did not challan 3 ladies accused and put them in khanna no 2.
In March 2003 police submitted final report u/s 173 crpc on the basis of the first complaint dated 21/7/2002 and did not mention anything in it about second complaint dated 25/7/2002.
The trail court framed charges against the accused u/s 406, 420,468,120-B IPC only on the basis allegations mentioned in the first complaint dated 21/7/2002.The charges as under:
“ I , Sanjeev Arya,JMIC, Kurukshetra, do hereby charge you all as under;
That in the month of March 2001, and on 10/6/2001as well as on 11/7/2001 within the area of 3rd gate under P.S.K.U.K, Kurukshetra, you all along with your co-accused Deepak Sharma, Hariender kaur and Dharampal Choudhary hatched a criminal conspiracy and in criminal conspiracy with each other, you all along with your co-accsued Deepak Sharma etc. cheated the complainants Jasbir Singh, Rajesh Kumar by dishonestly inducing them to deliver their passport no 4138 dated 21/5/2001 and passport no A-2799678 dated 16/5/1997 and also received a cash amount of Rs. 17,21,000/- belonging to the complainants for sending them to U.S.A., but you all converted the same to your own use by not sending the complainants to abroad and thus , you all therby committed an offence of breach of trust in respect of the said entrusted property under section 406 read with section 120-B I.P. within my cognizance.
Secondly on the basis of the aforesaid dates and place, you all in criminal conspiracy with each other along with your co-accused Deepak shrama etc. cheated the complainants Jasbir Singh and Rajesh Kumar by dishonestly inducing them to deliver their aforesaid passports along with the said cash amount, on the pretext for sending them to abroad i.e. U.S.A and you all altered the entire valuable security and thus, you all there by committed an offence punishable u/s 420 read with section 120-B IPC and with my cognizance.
Lastly, on the aforesaid dated, time and place you all along with your co-accused Deepak Sharma etc. in criminal conspiracy with each other, forged certain documents i.e two receipt showing the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- each from complainant Jasbir Singh for sending abroad and for settlement to U.S.A; issued by Mukesh Pahwa accused under the name and style Pahwa & Associate, Indian Junior Chamber, National Director (Training) year 2001 and two tickets pertaining to Alitalia air Line Bombay to Milan to New York dated 30/6/2001 and New York to Milan to Bombay dated 30/7/2001 and other documents, for taking them to abroad i.e. U.S.A, intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and that you all have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 468 read with 120-b IPC and within my cognizance.
Sd dated 19/5/2003
NOTE: The trail court did not frame the charges against the accused regarding the allegations contained in the second complaint dated 25/7/2002 of Bhagat singh and Jaidev.
That prosecution in order to prove it’s case examined PW1 sukhdev singh, PW2 ASI Ram Pal, PW 3 Jasbir Singh (complainant), PW4 Rajesh Kumar (Complainant), PW5 Ranbir singh, PW6 Jaidev (complainant), PW7 Isham Singh, PW8 Bhupinder Singh & PW9 Bhagat Singh (complainant). PW9 then moved an application u/s 319 crpc in the trail Court and vide orders dated 23/3/2006, the application u/s 319 crpc was allowed and three lady accused who were put in Khana No 2 were summoned as additional accused for their trail along with other accused already facing trail. Out of 3 ladies, 2 ladies accused challenged the aforesaid order dated 23/3/2006 in revision and vide order dated 9/1/2007 passed by Fast Track court, Kurukshetra. their revision was accepted and they were discharged by setting aside the order dated 23/3/2006. Trail court the framed charges against 3rd lady accused on dated 13/12/2007. Thereafter, the prosecution again re examined aforesaid PW1 and PW 3 to PW9 and also examined it’s other witnesses i.e. PW 10 to PW 14, however,PW2 Ram Pal HC was given up by the trail Court.
The prosecution examined PW1 Jasbir Singh, who has stated that he did not move any application EXPW1/A with Rajesh Kumar and also did not hand over any document to the police as has been mentioned in Ex PW1/B. Thus this witness did not support the case and has turned hostile. PW2 Jaidev also stated that he did not move any complaint EX PW2/A with Bhagat Singh to the police on 25/7/2002. He also stated that he did not make any statement EX PW2/B to the police and thus this witness also did not support the case of the prosecution. PW 3 Ranbir Singh, Pw4 Bhupinder Singh, PW5 Isham singh and PW 6 Mange Ram also did not support the prosecution case and they also turned hostile. The Prosecution examined PW7 Sukhdev Singh A.S.I., PW8 Tekan Raj Sharma D.S.P., PW 9 Harpal singh, S.I.,I.O. PW 10 Banwari Lal I.O., PW 11 Maya Ram A.S.I., I.O. PW 12 Bhagat singh, PW 13 Chuni lal,S.I. and PW 14 Ram singh H.C. and then closed it’s evidence.
Thereafter the statement of accused were recorded u/s 313 crpc and vide judgment dated 3/3/2012 out of 5 accused, one accused was held guilty u/s 420 IPC however remaining accused were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt.
PW 1 Jasbir singh and one Rajesh Kumar moved a joint complaint EX.PW1/A dated 21/7/2002 on the basis of which the case in hand was registered. The said PW 1Jasbir singh did not support the prosecution case and other complaint Rajesh Kumar PW4 before moving of the application u/s 319 crpc also did not support the case and he was not re-examined after 13/12/2007.
PW 2 Jaidev who jointly moved a complaint EX PW2/A with PW 12 Bhagat Singh also did not support the prosecution case.
PW 3 to PW 6 also did not support the prosecution case and they all also turned hostile.
PW7 to PW 11,PW13 and PW 14 all are police officials.
PW 12 Bhagat Singh complainant is the only witness who did not turn hostile but he also could not corroborate the content of his complaint EX PW2/A dated 25/7/2002. PW 12 Bhagat Singh in his examination in chief stated that he had talked to all the accused in the year 2002.In his cross examination he has admitted that he had lost his passport on 27/6/2002 and got entered DDR NO 54 dated 9/7/2002 to the effect that his passport was lost on 27/6/2002.He admitted and identified his signatures on copy of DDR no 54 dated 9/7/2002 EX DJ placed on file by the defence. Thus it is very much clear that PW 12 has lost his passport on 27/6/2002 much earlier to the regd. of this case. This witness has admitted the copy of his affidavit dated 20/09/2002 EX DK which was submitted by him for reissuing of his passport from Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh. This witness has further that EX DM is the Photostat copy of his BA 3rd year certificate which was issued to him Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra on 15/4/2002.This witness has alleged that he on 3/6/2001 had given his original passport and also his original BA 3rd year certificate to one accused but if EX DJ.DK and DM are gone through it stands proved this witness is a liar as in actual his passport was lost on 27/6/2002 and his BA 3rd certificate was issued to him on 15/4/2002.Thus from 3/6/2001 to 27/6/2002 the original passport of this PW 12 Bhagat singh was with him before it was lost on 27/6/2002 and his BA3rd year certificate was not even issued to him during the period 3/6/2001 to 14/4/2002.
Posted by Dinesh Jain | March 24, 2012, 8:31 PMHi, Neat post. There’s a problem with your web site in internet explorer, would test this… IE still is the market leader and a huge portion of people will miss your great writing due to this problem.
Posted by WWW | May 6, 2012, 6:27 PMNamaste
This is the first visit to your web-site and it is indeed a veritable treasure for common person (senior citizen) like me! On seeing the (your) photo first I thought it was the Bollywood superhero Ajay Devgan – you look pretty smart.
I want to ask your valuable opinion regarding – Welfare Association – which is meant for managing the affairs of the residential colony/apartment etc.
A In our case the builder did not quit after handing over the individual houses to the colony people but continued to render maintenance AND canteen facility through another Services company. There is a INDIVIDUAL contract between the company and the Owner regarding such an arrangement. So this is unlike the regular apartments which are built by a builder and the builder moves off after handing over – leaving the affairs to the owners/inmates.
B So for the last 3 years there was no Welfare Association by the inmates – there are about 70 houses and the owners occupy about 25 houses, another 30 houses are rented and the remaining remain locked-up.
C. The average age of the resident is about 70 years!
D. All of a sudden a few Owners (along with tenants) wanted to wield the power and formed a Welfare association – most of us DO NOT want this association business (we are old, there will be factions and politics etc). More important the SERVICE PROVIDER is doing the job of maintenance and canteen services pretty well.
E. So how to object and prevent this Association from existence and or functioning?
This is indeed is a PECULIAR SITUATION!
Regards
Sivakumar R
Shenbagam Estates – Retirement Colony of Covai Properties Center (India) Pvt Ltd – now renamed as Serene Senior Care Group.
Coimbatore
Mobile 9487791449
Email – onlyonekumar@gmail.com
PS: When you get the time please visit our web-site – just google – Shenbagam Estates – and you will find us in the commonfloor website platform.
Posted by SIVAKUMAR R | May 18, 2012, 9:32 AMRespected sir
point D is the crucial one.
1. whether there is any agreement or contract between the builder and you { all dwellers} in respect of maintenance of the amenities of the apartments/colony?
2. whether the welfare Association is a Reg. one. what are it’s objects , whether any resolutions are passed to that effect to take possession of colony maintenance works ?
3.Whether the builder retained his rights in respect of maintenance of the colony ?
in the absence of any contract to hand over maintenance of the colony to the dwellers association, the builder can maintain the same and he can pay objection through court of law. all supports can support him in that situation. as a members you too has got right to question the unnecessary and unwanted changes in a court of law.
this opinion subject to verification of documents. and apartments act for guidance only.
your sir consult the local advocate by placing all records before him. on perusing records he will guide you in a proper way.
with regards
advocatemmmohan
Posted by advocatemmmohan | May 18, 2012, 10:03 AM